Corpuscles or Cells?

When I first did a course in anatomy and physiology and we got to the part about blood, our lecturer was quite adamant about referring to red blood corpuscles, not red blood cells. He had a reason for this: red blood corpuscles did not have nuclei, and without nuclei, they could not be properly referred to as cells per se. In the 50+ years since that lecture, in every academic and clinical setting in which I have found myself, reference has always been to red blood cells—never corpuscles.

The only other time I have heard ‘corpuscles’ referred to was when I went to listen to a talk by the mountaineer Sir Chris Bonington (b. 1934). This must have been around 1990 when he came to speak at Saint David’s Hall in Cardiff. In fact, he referred to them as ‘corpuscules’. This is not a misspelling or mispronunciation. It happens to be a now obsolete version of ‘corpuscle’—but still close enough to be the only time I’ve heard a word other than ‘red blood cell’ used. Bonington was describing what a doctor on one of his expeditions was studying and how he would be required to provide samples at different altitudes.

I remember the word ‘corpuscle’ being used in the 1960s, i.e., in my youth. Use of just the word ‘corpuscle’ immediately denoted red blood corpuscles/cells. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known use of "red blood cell" dates from as early as 1850. The term "red blood corpuscle" was used earlier, with the first recorded use being in 1844. Looking further into the naming of blood cells, I find that the term ‘white blood corpuscles’ was also used in the mid-nineteenth century. I’ve never heard that term used, though. Why the phrase ‘white blood cell’ is used is perhaps a little puzzling when the more scientifically sounding word ‘leukocyte’ is available. (It’s three one-syllable words versus one three-syllable word. Perhaps nobody can remember whether it’s leukocyte with a ‘k’ or leukocyte with a ‘c’.)

And yet, I still like the idea of corpuscles. I like the way using the word 'corpuscle' distinguishes red blood cells from the other blood cells.

NB Here I have only been thinking of humans and the clinical setting where one does not expect to find nuclei in mature, fully formed red cells. There are animals that do have nucleated red blood cells. Fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds typically have nucleated red blood cells. In most mammals, mature red blood cells are not nucleated and also lack certain other organelles like mitochondria. This allows more space in which to pack haemoglobin. This, in turn, increases the cell's oxygen-carrying capacity.

Among vertebrates, non-nucleated red cells are unique to mammals. A notable exception within the class Mammalia is the family Camelidae (camels, llamas, and alpacas), which have elliptical red blood cells that retain a nucleus.

Why, supposedly, do ‘Gentlemen Prefer Blondes’?

Mention of Marilyn Monroe has sparked a minor avalanche of ideas. (I remember her dying but was never a fan.) Monroe starred with Jane Russell (1921-2011) in the film ‘Gentlemen Prefer Blondes’ (1953). This film is, apparently, a musical comedy. I have not seen it; it’s not my sort of thing. (In fact, since starting to write this post, it has been shown on television. I watched for about a minute before I gave up. It was certainly not my sort of thing.)

But the title of the film does beg the question, ‘If so, then why?’ It is not enough to dismiss the title as outdated or misogynous. Indeed, it transpires that the film was based on a comic novel of the same name by Anita Loos, published in 1925. This was followed up, in 1927, by But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes, which was also made into a film called, simply, Gentlemen Marry Brunettes—which was also made into a film. (Maybe I’ll give them a read.)

Furthermore, there are other questions that are being begged:
    Do ALL gentlemen prefer blondes?
    Do women prefer to be blonde or brunette?
    When choosing to colour one’s hair, do more brunettes prefer to become blonde than vice versa?
    Here, one must take into account whether it is easier to darken light hair or lighten dark hair, and what is implied should the preference be in favour of the more difficult of the two.

There may—or may not—be data out there to answer these questions. Perhaps companies selling hair dyes know. But I am not setting out to come to any conclusion on the matter. I am wanting to just ask questions—as is my wont.

In the past, I have come across the idea that those with naturally blonde hair—and a fairer overall complexion—are those who are less able to disguise certain underlying health conditions such as tuberculosis or other respiratory ailments. Poor respiratory physiology often presents as a bluish paleness. Unable to disguise such ailments, blondes are ‘preferred’ to those with darker hair or complexions whose respiratory ailments do not show up so obviously.

Lips, in particular, may take on a bluish tinge. This can now be disguised with lipstick—oddly coloured varieties notwithstanding. This answers the naive-sounding—but nevertheless begged—question, ‘Why redden already red lips?’ Most lipsticks are on the general theme of red.

Addendum
Having begun to write this post, I’ve now come across a hair colour called ‘bronde’! Obviously, a portmanteau of brown and blonde. At first, I didn’t believe that it really was a word, but it can be found in dictionaries. One internet description says that it is 'a blended hair colour that fuses blonde and brown tones, creating a dimensional, natural-looking shade that is neither fully blonde nor fully brown’ (before becoming even more effusive).

(Apparently, the word was first used about 15 years ago, and—as if I didn’t know already—I am decidedly behind the times.)

On stiletto heels per se

I commented, in a previous post, on the so-called ‘wiggle’ in women’s walks—as sung about by The Big Bopper and Jerry Lee Lewis—and about how Marilyn Monroe capitalised on that characteristic of the female/feminine gait. I was reminded while writing that post that there is something else about stiletto heels worth noting.

I once asked some of my female students what they thought made wearing high heels desirable—in their and men’s eyes. After all, high heels can be quite uncomfortable, so why go to such lengths? They thought that the key thing high heels gave was greater definition to their calf muscles. There is indeed greater definition when calf muscles are contracted—and made to remain contracted when standing in high heels. This may indeed be attractive, but this will be subjective—in the ‘eye of the beholder’. Is there an explanation that is more ‘fundamental’?

It has been suggested that longer-looking legs—at least in proportion to the trunk—are indicative of good health or at least a healthy developmental history. Factors contributing to and influencing the development in one part of an organism can also influence other parts in the same organism at the same time and in similar ways. What is going to aid development of one structure is going to aid development of another.

When looking for sexual partners, healthy individuals tend to be given preference. A partner needs to have some—at least implied—physical ‘qualities’. If that is indeed the case, there is an argument to suggest that longer (looking) legs—naturally so or enhanced by heels—act as a signal in sexual selection. One finds longer legs attractive—not because they are so in any absolute sense—but because they act as surrogates for something of more fundamental biological importance.

What we find ‘attractive’ is not attractive in an absolute sense. After all, what does ‘attractive’ really mean? There are often different nuances regarding attractiveness in different cultures. It is, on one hand, a very subjective matter, but on the other, because there is often some consensus, there appear to be objective elements too. What seems attractive is often something that is or implies a healthy physical state.

Try the converse. Take somebody one knows to be unhealthy and consider how one feels towards them in terms of their attractiveness. (Being careful not to confuse this with sympathy.)

Addendum
As a potential test of some of the ideas introduced here, one might take a trip down to the shops. Not least those specialising in cosmetics and grooming products. When there, ask yourself what bearing the things on sale have on one’s appearance with regard to health. While some ‘lateral thinking’ may be required, it is not hard to see that they all invariably try to enhance one’s appearance of health.

'...A wiggle in her walk...'

The song Chantilly Lace (1958) by the Big Bopper (Jiles Perry Richardson Jr. (1930-1959)) contains the phrase:

A wiggle in her walk…

Every time I hear this song, I remember an anecdote told by an old professor. He claimed that the ‘wiggle’ in women’s walks was due to a difference in timing of pelvic and hip muscle contraction by comparison with that in males. It was a genuine physiological phenomenon.

There was at that time a girl on campus who was studying biochemistry. A particular skirt she sometimes wore had a very distinctive way of flicking as she walked. (I couldn’t help noticing this and thinking of every time of what our old prof. had said.) Indeed, the ‘wiggle’ seems to be a signal denoting (or ‘advertising’, as some put it) one’s sex and so is an example of sexual dimorphism.

An extension of this comes in another anecdote. One that I hear regarding Marilyn Monroe (1926-1962). A female student once told me that Marilyn Monroe deliberately had the heels of one shoe made shorter than the other. Here we are specifically talking about stiletto heels. The difference in heel length results in different leg lengths. (Whether she consistently had the left or the right heel shortened probably doesn’t really matter.) This inevitably leads to exaggerated hip movements when walking by way of compensation.

NB
The song Chantilly Lace was covered by Jerry Lee Lewis (1935-2022) in 1972 and has now come to be more often associated with him than with the Big Bopper.

You can watch the Big Bopper sing the song here.